Washington Post publishes opportunistic smear job on WWE and drug use as a result of Warrior's death

[We Are Legion]

Here's the link for anyone who wants to take a jab at them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...-c02f-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_allComments.html

Disgusting.

 

[Chris]

"Can you even begin to believe how closely an owner of the WWE, which encourages, and perhaps even mandates, drug abuse despite the dangers to their employees, came to being a Republican United States Senator?"

"Mandates drug abuse"

 

[Deezy]

Thoat comments section

People who use comment sections looking down on wrestling fans and calling the morons isn't ironic as it is tragic, these people have the actual motor skills to type on a computer.

 

[Cena's Jeans Shorts]

Lol @ the Andre caption where they pointed out his relatively young death. Nevermind that doctors told him very early in life he's never make it past 40.

 

[Deezy]

Recycled an old post-Benoit story and just added two sentences with Warriors name on it, lazy, hack journalism at it's finest. I guess you don't even have to do research anymore.

 

[Chris]

To be fair though, a lot of the comments I saw were actually positive and criticizing the article. But the dumb ones just stood out more.

 

[Defiant]

The article feels out of date and mostly centered around Benoit. I'm not sure what question the author is asking exactly or what action the article is prompting, the point of it is to bring up wrestling's darker history. The word "opportunistic" is appropriate. Even more disappointing is that the author mentions nothing about Ultimate Warrior's (the guy the article is presumably about) accomplishments and legacy in WWE. Like all that is trivial and meaningless because he died in middle age.

The author does mention briefly towards the end that WWE has changed it's attitude post-Benoit with it's strict drug policy and banning weapon shots to the head, but seems hesitant to go any deeper. Overall it's a largely negative article by an author who shows little enthusiasm towards wrestling as entertainment, written in the wake of a legend's death to generate clicks and offers nothing conclusive, only his suspicions.

 

[John McHenry]

They just watched Nancy Grace and made a story based on it.

 

[Luke Flywalker]

STUPID!

 

[ThatGuyFromNukemHigh]

"Can you even begin to believe how closely an owner of the WWE, which encourages, and perhaps even mandates, drug abuse despite the dangers to their employees, came to being a Republican United States Senator?"

"Mandates drug abuse"

Regarding Warrior, he was around when Hogan/Vince were in that lawsuit where Vince was reportedly not only taking the steroids(which we can all see as fact) but was forcing talents to take them as well.

The article itself was rather factual, even if its all things any wrestling fan with a computer already knows. I did find it funny they refrained from mentioning former wrestler Chistopher Nowinski while bringing up the "theory" that wrestler can sustain the same brain injuries as boxers/football players, since he has proven it.

But the one thing they neglected was the "rockstar" lifestyle, I am sure we could come up with more musicians that died before the age of 40 than we could for any other media obsessed career choice. Hell there is a list of 34 of them that died at the age of 27. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_27s:_The_Greatest_Myth_of_Rock_&_Roll

 

[Chris]

Regarding Warrior, he was around when Hogan/Vince were in that lawsuit where Vince was reportedly not only taking the steroids(which we can all see as fact) but was forcing talents to take them as well

But the comment clearly says encourageS and mandateS not encouraged and mandated. And it related to Linda' s senate run, which was well after any of the encouraging and mandating.

 

[Rated R Superstar]

Anything to shit on wrestling it seems.

 

[ThatGuyFromNukemHigh]

But the comment clearly says encourageS and mandateS not encouraged and mandated. And it related to Linda' s senate run, which was well after any of the encouraging and mandating.

Media couldn't care less about time frames. Just look at the times it went after Obama or Bush for what they did in college, years before ever being in politics. In their world, if you did it once, you continue to "get away with it".

 

[Chris]

Media couldn't care less about time frames. Just look at the times it went after Obama or Bush for what they did in college, years before ever being in politics. In their world, if you did it once, you continue to "get away with it".

This was just a comment though. I agree with what you said but the quote that originally started this was just from a commentor, not the article.

 

[ThatGuyFromNukemHigh]

Oh okay, that does change things. Probably someone who doesn't know the changes in the wellness policy then.